First, I'd like to admit a conflict of interest since I have pitifully low reputation. Also, this may be a bit of duplicate of another post which questioned the democracy and fairness of the reputation system.
The current system rewards dedicated users rather than dedicated mathematicians. Thus, it is not an entirely accurate indication of mathematical ability. To be sure, ability plays a significant role in attaining high reputation. Yet there is the risk of members with high status acquiring the `halo effect', i.e. the highly ranked being perceived as more intelligent in some sense.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, members with low reputation may be taken less seriously though their answers may be helpful or insightful. This runs the risk of unwittingly committing the ad hominem fallacy, attacking low status members for their contributions.
The virtue of mathematics is that it frees us our identity: the arguments we construct are independent of our reputation, income, status, or character. The power of status has no power in mathematics. It liberates us from quotidian things, allowing us peer into a world greater than ourselves. This is where I find beauty in maths: it transcends the world around us.
This is why I question how effective a reputation system is for I enjoy sharing a community for mathematics, I'm from New Zealand where not may locals study maths. Thank you for your time, I appreciate any feedback or discussion.
Given the negative feedback I realize my post was a bit extreme so I apologize to anyone I offended. I'd still like to have an open minded discussion of how fair the reputation is though, I concede that it isn't entirely bad but I still think there's room for improvement. Again, I'm deeply sorry for anyone I hurt by this post, that wasn't my intention.